I've just asked Prudence and Shirley their opinion of this theory/scenario.
What if the CAS find against City and declare that Sala was a Cardiff City player at the time and ordered them to pay? Do you think City have made the provision because if the decision goes against them, they're concerned that their insurer may not pay out?
OK, so you'd expect CCFC's insurers to step in immediately, but that's very unlike insurers who usually look for any breaches of covenant (loopholes) to avoid liability. Like for instance clamiing that City did not take due care of their player by allowing him to commit to an illegal flight.
If that were a reason for declaring the policy void, then I can see a long and drawn out action by City against the agents/organisers who arranged the tragic flight. At least in financial terms the club would have already made the provision in the balance sheet for the 100% write off, but this could run on for some time.
What if the CAS find against City and declare that Sala was a Cardiff City player at the time and ordered them to pay? Do you think City have made the provision because if the decision goes against them, they're concerned that their insurer may not pay out?
OK, so you'd expect CCFC's insurers to step in immediately, but that's very unlike insurers who usually look for any breaches of covenant (loopholes) to avoid liability. Like for instance clamiing that City did not take due care of their player by allowing him to commit to an illegal flight.
If that were a reason for declaring the policy void, then I can see a long and drawn out action by City against the agents/organisers who arranged the tragic flight. At least in financial terms the club would have already made the provision in the balance sheet for the 100% write off, but this could run on for some time.
